BAKU, Azerbaijan, September 1. The necessity of
reforming the United Nations once again took center stage on the
international agenda at the “SCO Plus” meeting in Bishkek. Against
the backdrop of protracted conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and
growing divisions within the UN Security Council, the question is
being raised more and more frequently: to what extent is the
existing system capable of effectively responding to contemporary
challenges and ensuring the implementation of its own
decisions?
One of the most striking examples of the limited effectiveness
of the U.N. system was the failure to implement four Security
Council resolutions adopted in 1993 in connection with the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Although the resolutions called for
a cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces from
Azerbaijan’s occupied territories, no effective mechanism for their
implementation was established for decades.
Ultimately, the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity and sovereignty was achieved by the state itself. It is
precisely this experience that once again raises the fundamental
question of what practical significance Security Council
resolutions have if the international system lacks effective tools
to ensure their implementation.
Speaking at a “SCO Plus” meeting in Bishkek, the capital of the
Kyrgyz Republic, President Ilham Aliyev of the Republic of
Azerbaijan emphasized that the development of appropriate
mechanisms is required for the swift implementation of UN Security
Council resolutions.
"A little over a year ago, Azerbaijan and Armenia initialed the
text of the peace agreement, putting an end to a 30-year conflict.
Thus, the South Caucasus region, which was a long-standing conflict
zone, is becoming a zone of peace.
Four resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council in 1993 were
implemented three years ago, 30 years later. Azerbaijan is already
supplying petroleum products to Armenia and providing transit for
third-country cargo. Together with Armenia, we are working to
increase the volume of mutual trade, expand the range of goods, and
create new overland transport links. However, unfortunately, the UN
played no role in the implementation of these resolutions.
Azerbaijan entirely restored its sovereignty and territorial
integrity on its own. The development of appropriate mechanisms is
required for the swift implementation of UN Security Council
resolutions. If implemented, this would serve to enhance the UN's
prestige and the organization's role in conflict resolution,” the
head of state said.
However, the problem is by no means limited to a single
conflict. The history of recent decades shows that the UN has
repeatedly faced situations where the decisions it adopted proved
insufficient to halt hostilities, protect the civilian population,
or prevent humanitarian disasters.
One of the most tragic examples remains Rwanda in 1994, where
the international community was unable to prevent the genocide
despite the presence of a UN peacekeeping mission. Another symbol
of the failure of the collective security system was Srebrenica in
1995, which the UN Security Council had declared a “safe area” but
failed to protect from mass murder.
In Syria, the problem manifested itself in a different form –
the paralysis of the Security Council amid deep divisions among its
permanent members. The long-standing conflict has shown just how
difficult it is for the UN to develop a unified international
position when the interests of the major powers directly clash.
The challenges of peacekeeping have also repeatedly highlighted
the limitations of the existing system. In South Sudan, the UN
operation—initially focused on supporting the establishment of a
new independent state and protecting the civilian population—faced
a new round of civil war, forcing peacekeepers to concentrate not
only on fulfilling their mandate but also on their own safety.
In Mali, the peacekeeping mission came under attack by extremist
groups. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the long-standing
UN operation faced the threat of collapse amid regional and local
conflicts. In Darfur, the hybrid UN-African Union mission was also
unable to fully implement its original peacekeeping mandate as the
conflict reignited.
All these examples point to a single common problem: there is a
significant gap between the scale of the tasks entrusted to the UN
and the tools the organization has at its disposal to carry them
out.
At the same time, the United Nations itself acknowledges the
existence of systemic problems. A review of the implementation of
UN mandates, prepared as part of the organization’s 2025 reform
agenda, highlights overlapping mandates among various entities,
insufficient coordination in their implementation, fragmentation of
activities, a growing gap between mandates and available resources,
and inconsistent mechanisms for reviewing mandates.
The document specifically notes that effective management of
mandate implementation is of fundamental importance for achieving
the goals of Member States. “Any shortcomings in this regard will
hinder the achievement of Member States’ goals and ultimately lead
to diminished results,” the review states.
The authors of the document also draw attention to the
inefficient division of labor within the UN system. According to
the review, existing processes and practices do not allow for a
clear allocation of responsibilities among the organization’s
entities. Coordination in the preparation of budgets and programs
remains limited, and existing oversight mechanisms are largely
focused on individual entities rather than on ensuring strategic
coherence across the entire system.
The scale of the bureaucratic apparatus is also telling: within
the UN Secretariat, departments cite nearly 4,000 sources of
mandates as the basis for their proposed program budgets. At the
same time, many units cite the same mandates, and about 50
references pertain to mandates that, according to the authors of
the review, can be considered defunct.
The need for change is articulated even more directly in the
UN80 Initiative’s Progress Report, published in May 2026.
The document describes the current state of affairs as
“unacceptable.” The UN points out that the organization effectively
faces two paths: “change through a thoughtful and measured reform
process adopted by Member States in accordance with established
procedures,” or change brought about by external pressure.
At the same time, the document emphasizes that inaction also
carries serious risks: existing weaknesses will remain unresolved,
and the system’s capabilities may gradually erode. “The status quo
may seem like a comfort zone, but in the end, it may turn out to be
more of a trap,” the report states.
Thus, the need for reform is now recognized not only by states
that criticize certain aspects of the UN’s work, but also by the
organization itself.
At a meeting in Bishkek, Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov stated
that existing shortcomings in the work of the United Nations should
not serve as a pretext for weakening its role or bypassing the
organization. According to him, on the contrary, they underscore
the need to work together to strengthen the UN, enhance its
effectiveness, and improve its mechanisms in line with contemporary
realities.
“Kyrgyzstan supports the reform of the United Nations, including
its Security Council. Such reform must be carried out through broad
consensus,” Japarov said.
Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev also emphasized the need
to strengthen the organization and enhance its effectiveness,
noting that the UN must remain the core of the international
system, and its Charter—the universal foundation of international
law. According to him, amid acute geopolitical tensions, it is
particularly important to preserve and strengthen the UN’s central
coordinating role.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, for his part, has
repeatedly spoken of the need for international institutions to
adapt to modern realities.
"Our relationships are changing, but multilateral organizations
still largely reflect the realities of 1945. We must reform our
multilateral institutions, including the United Nations and the
Bretton Woods system, so that they reflect today’s realities and
increase the representation and influence of developing countries
in order to build a just world order,” he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke of the need to
improve the UN’s effectiveness, expand representation in its
bodies—including the Security Council—to include countries from the
Global South and East, and adapt the organization to fundamental
changes in global politics and the economy.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was even more
unequivocal: “Today, the UN is in dire need of reform. It must
become more accountable and more responsive.”
However, the issue is not merely one of expanding representation
or redistributing seats on the Security Council. It concerns a more
fundamental problem—whether the entire architecture of the
international organization is aligned with the contemporary world
order.
As Matthew Bryza, former U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan, said in
an interview with Trend, the most serious flaw with the United
Nations is its original design, based on the political reality of
the immediate post-World War II era, where five countries have a
monopoly on authority.
"These are the countries that were the five most powerful in
1945, 1946, 1947. So that's the United States, the Soviet Union,
now Russia takes the seat of the Soviet Union, China, France, and
the United Kingdom.
The world has evolved dramatically since that period, and there are
other countries with much more power than some of those countries",
he said.
In addition, the former ambassador noted that other countries
are influential in other regions of the world and perhaps deserve
to have an equal say.
"So those include countries like Türkiye, Germany, Japan,
Brazil. Maybe the whole idea of a Security Council that has excess
authority simply doesn't make sense. So that's the big reform I
think that needs to take place in the United Nations overall
structure. Turkish President Erdogan often echoes that need by
claiming that the world is bigger than five."
According to Bryza, the second shortcoming and structural flaw
of the United Nations is that it has no enforcement mechanism.
"Everybody in Azerbaijan knows about the four United Nations
Security Council resolutions that went unenforced and unimplemented
for decades," the former U.S. ambassador added.
He also noted that a third reform that's needed is to reduce the
size of the bureaucracy of the United Nations.
"The United Nations bureaucracy is enormous. Its peacekeeping
operations, because of a lack of enforcement, can't really
accomplish often the tasks that they're set out to do. There are
many other UN agencies that are much too bloated in terms of staff,
and then other agencies that do a great job, especially on
humanitarian assistance, but there probably should be more
resources allocated to them than many of the other United Nations
agencies," Bryza concluded.
As a result, the UN faces a paradoxical challenge today. On the
one hand, the organization remains the primary universal
institution through which states can discuss global issues,
coordinate positions, and seek diplomatic solutions. On the other
hand, it is precisely during the most critical moments that the
collective security system reveals its limitations.
International law retains its formal force, yet its application
increasingly clashes with the political interests of states. The
Security Council adopts resolutions that may go unenforced, and in
other cases proves incapable of reaching a decision at all. The
veto power is transforming from a tool for maintaining a balance
among the great powers into a factor capable of blocking collective
action. Against this backdrop, accusations of double standards and
the selective application of the principles of international law
are growing louder.
That is precisely why today’s discussion on UN reform goes far
beyond the question of the number of seats on the Security Council.
At stake is trust in the very system of international relations and
its ability to provide predictable rules for all states.
The world has indeed changed since 1945. The centers of
economic, political, and military power have shifted, new
influential states have emerged, and the nature of conflicts has
become significantly more complex. However, the institutional
architecture of the United Nations remains largely unchanged.
If the organization fails to adapt to these changes, there is a
risk that the gap between its stated principles and its actual
ability to uphold them will only widen. In that case, the UN’s
crisis will become not merely a crisis of a single international
organization, but a crisis of the entire multilateral system.
At the same time, the world still needs a global platform for
dialogue and cooperation, and so far no other structure has been
able to fully replace the UN. Therefore, the question today is not
whether the world needs the United Nations, but whether it is
capable of reforming itself sufficiently to meet the needs of the
21st-century world.
